nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

The US Can Secretly Rotate Nuclear Warheads Through Australia

And the clear message coming from Moriarty, with the consensus of foreign affairs minister Penny Wong, is that for all Australia knows, the US could run nuclear warheads through the country, without informing anyone, and that’s what governments going back decades have agreed to.

Washington’s proposed rotating of B-52s through the north is understood to be a threat to Beijing, and coupled with the broad US access to our military sites, as well as the joint facilities at Pine Gap and North West Cape, these arrangements likely hardwire us into any US war on China.

22/02/2023 BY PAUL GREGOIRE,  https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-us-can-secretly-rotate-nuclear-warheads-through-australia/

After a midmorning break on budget estimate proceedings, defence secretary Greg Moriarty delivered a response to a question put by Greens Senator Jordan Steele-John earlier in the day, which has since escalated the current debate over Australia relinquishing sovereignty to the US.

Steele-John quizzed Moriarty, on 15 February, as to whether B-52 bombers that will be “cycling through” the country, following the US Army having built storage space for six such fighters as part of its upgrade of RAAF Base Tindal, “will be solely conventionally capable, not nuclear capable”.

“It’s clear that stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, to which Australia is fully committed,” advised Moriarty, adding that this treaty, nor that of non-proliferation, prevent foreign aircraft visiting or transiting local airfields or airspace.

According to the defence head, “successive Australian governments have understood and respected the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms”.

And the clear message coming from Moriarty, with the consensus of foreign affairs minister Penny Wong, is that for all Australia knows, the US could run nuclear warheads through the country, without informing anyone, and that’s what governments going back decades have agreed to.

Unimpeded access

When Steel-John further queried Moriarty as to whether this could see nuclear weapons transiting, Wong intervened stating that the question involves talk of “rotational forces under an agreement with another government”, so she’d like to provide an answer after the “opportunity to consult”.

The pre-prepared response later delivered by Moriarty included the admission that “US bomber aircraft have been visiting Australia since the early 1980s and have conducted training in Australia since 2005”. And over this time, Canberra has respected Washington’s policy of warhead ambiguity.

Moriarty added that this policy is in line with the 2014 Force Posture Agreement between the two nations, which provides the US with unimpeded access to certain local military facilities, of which it gains operational control over when it’s carrying out any construction activity at such a site.

The FPA officially established that US troops rotate through the north of Australia, with their number now having grown to 2,500 marines annually, as well as having improved interoperability between the nations’ air forces. And it’s this agreement that’s led to the construction of a B-52 storage site.

Washington’s proposed rotating of B-52s through the north is understood to be a threat to Beijing, and coupled with the broad US access to our military sites, as well as the joint facilities at Pine Gap and North West Cape, these arrangements likely hardwire us into any US war on China.

Ambiguity abounds

“As I understand from that, secretary, the government’s reading of Australia’s treaty obligations does not prohibit nuclear armed B-52s from being temporarily present in Australia,” Senator David Shoebridge suggested to Moriarty following his explanation of the opaque US stance on warheads.

However, at this point, Wong cut in on what appeared to be a fairly straightforward assessment coming from the Greens senator in regard to what the defence secretary had just explained.

“There’s no suggestion,” the foreign minister countered. “No one at this table has talked about nuclear armed B-52s.”

Wong then reiterated some of the points made by the defence secretary that clearly led to Shoebridge’s assumption: Canberra has long understood and respected “the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying” and this doesn’t impinge on our international obligations.

Shoebridge then framed it in a different way, as he asked whether Defence considers this nation isn’t under any obligation to prevent nuclear armed US bombers from entering if they’re not a “permanent presence”. However, the minister, again, claimed he was “reading more into it”.

Then, after further reasonable prodding from the Greens member, Wong, quite tellingly, explained that she and the defence secretary weren’t in a position to go any further than the answer that was provided, and she then implied it was unfair to the community to posit further “hypotheticals”.

Whilst initial diplomatic moves made by Wong since taking over the foreign affairs portfolio have served a modicum of hope that the mounting tensions between Beijing and Canberra might be allayed, her December visit to the US saw this dashed.

Wong and defence minister Richard Marles were in Washington to meet with US secretary of state Antony Blinken and defence secretary Lloyd Austin late last year, as part of the annual AUSMIN conference, which had a focus on countering China’s “destabilising military activities” this time.

And the conference saw Austin extend an invitation to Japan – which is a part of the QUAD security arrangement, along with this country, the US and India – to join in the US Force Posture Initiatives, which are the operational arrangements established under the FPA, on Australian soil.

The resurrected QUAD has become of increasing importance with its new focus on Beijing. In fact, Anthony Albanese’s first act as prime minister was to fly to Japan for a QUAD meeting, while the following month saw him in Madrid for a NATO conference, which had China on its agenda.

And while the Albanese administration hasn’t repeated the hawkish ravings that former PM Scott Morrison and defence minister Peter Dutton were spouting at the end of their reign, the US presence in Australia, likely guarantees involvement in a war with China prior to any official decision.

Ending at the starting line

Following Wong’s explanation that all that could be said had been, Shoebridge put it to Moriarty that he understands that Australia doesn’t challenge the US on warhead ambiguity, and he then asked whether our treaty obligations aren’t breached by B-52s potentially carrying nuclear arsenal.

In response, the minister became even more ruffled than she had been prior, and she reiterated that the various treaties aren’t being threatened.

Wong then accused Shoebridge of drumming up concerns, to which he countered that he wasn’t “fearmongering” and put the question to the defence secretary one more time.

“I think the minister has outlined Australia’s treaty obligations,” Moriarty told the Greens senator, as he brought the exchange regarding B-52s to a close.

“As I said, under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, to which we are fully committed, stationing of nuclear weapons is prohibited.”

Advertisement

February 23, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, secrets,lies and civil liberties, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Cost of EDF’s new UK nuclear project rises to $40 billion (msn.com).

By America Hernandez, 21 Feb 23 PARIS (Reuters) – EDF’s new nuclear plant in southwest England is likely to cost about 2% more than its last budget estimate as inflation propels the price tag to almost 33 billion pounds ($40 billion), EDF documents show.

Britain plans to build new nuclear plants to boost its energy security and help meet a target for net zero emissions by 2050.

EDF warned in a results presentation on Friday the cost of the Hinkley Point C project, Britain’s first new nuclear plant in more than two decades, “could reach 32.7 billion pounds” based on inflation indexes as of June 30, 2022.

Its previously published cost estimate in May 2022 was 31-32 billion euros when adjusted for inflation.

PARIS (Reuters) – EDF’s new nuclear plant in southwest England is likely to cost about 2% more than its last budget estimate as inflation propels the price tag to almost 33 billion pounds ($40 billion), EDF documents show.

Britain plans to build new nuclear plants to boost its energy security and help meet a target for net zero emissions by 2050.

EDF warned in a results presentation on Friday the cost of the Hinkley Point C project, Britain’s first new nuclear plant in more than two decades, “could reach 32.7 billion pounds” based on inflation indexes as of June 30, 2022.

Its previously published cost estimate in May 2022 was 31-32 billion euros when adjusted for inflation. https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/other/cost-of-edf-s-new-uk-nuclear-project-rises-to-40-billion/ar-AA17IxdK?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a11054ac2c0c487f9a20627240342227

February 23, 2023 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Spreading the Bomb – Will Ottawa revisit Canada’s support for plutonium reprocessing?

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility 

February 21, 2023

Today, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and researchers from five universities are urging Ottawa to reconsider its financial and political support for reprocessing in Canada – extracting plutonium from used nuclear fuel.

Plutonium is one of the key materials needed to make nuclear weapons—the other alternative is highly enriched uranium. Plutonium is created as a byproduct in nuclear reactors. Once extracted, plutonium can be used either as a nuclear fuel or as a nuclear explosive. The chemical process used to separate plutonium from other radioactive substances produced in nuclear reactors is called reprocessing

In 1974 India used plutonium from a Canadian reactor to explode an atomic bomb in an underground test. The entire world was shocked to realize that access to plutonium and the making of an atomic bomb may be separated only by an act of political will.

Last week, a House of Commons committee released a report recommending that the government “work with international and scientific partners to examine nuclear waste reprocessing and its implications for waste management and [nuclear weapons] proliferation vulnerability.

The recommendation by the House of Commons committee echoes numerous calls by civil society groups and by U.S. and domestic researchers after Canada announced a $50.5 million grant to the Moltex corporation in March 2021 for a New Brunswick project to develop a plutonium reprocessing facility at the Point Lepreau nuclear site on the Bay of Fundy.

Allowing plutonium reprocessing in Canada sends a dangerous signal to other countries that it is OK to for them to extract plutonium for commercial use. Such a practice increases the risk of spreading nuclear weapons capabilities to countries that currently do not possess the means to make nuclear weapons. The risk is that much greater if Canada sells the technology, as is currently envisaged.

“By supporting the implementation of reprocessing technology intended for export, in connection with a plutonium-fuelled nuclear reactor, without regard for the weapons implications, Canada may be once again spreading the bomb abroad,” says Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition on Nuclear Responsibility.

Reprocessing is often justified as a solution to the problem of dealing with nuclear waste, but in reality, it only makes the challenge even harder. Instead of having all the radioactive materials produced in solid spent fuel, these get dispersed into multiple solid, liquid and gaseous waste streams.

­­­

Researchers from the University of British Columbia, Princeton University and three New Brunswick universities are supporting the call for an international review. “We’re heartened that the House of Commons Committee listened to the concerns about plutonium reprocessing raised by numerous experts and concerned citizens,” says Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Adjunct Professor at the University of New Brunswick.

Dr. Edwards cited three letters written to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by nine prominent nonproliferation experts, including plutonium expert Dr. Frank von Hippel. “The Prime Minister’s failure to respond indicates an appalling lack of good governance on the proliferation of nuclear weapons,” said Dr. Edwards.

To date the government has not responded to the letters or even acknowledged the monumental significance of the nuclear weapons connection with reprocessing. The House of Commons Science and Research Committee cited the letters by Dr. von Hippel and others as rationale for their recommendation to conduct the review.

Commercial reprocessing has never been carried out in Canada but in the past, Canada has been complicit in the production of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War some reprocessing was done at the federal government’s Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory, at a time when Canada sold both uranium and plutonium to the US army for use in nuclear weapons. These operations resulted in a permanent legacy of nuclear waste and radioactive contamination in Canada.

The first reactors were built to produce plutonium for bombs. The first reprocessing plants were built to extract plutonium to be used as a nuclear explosive. Following India’s use of plutonium from a nuclear reactor supplied by Canada in its 1974 weapon test, the United States banned commercial plutonium reprocessing in 1977 to reduce the danger of weapons proliferation.

Canada has had an informal ban on reprocessing since the 1970s. A 2016 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories report stated that reprocessing used CANDU fuel would “increase proliferation risk.” That CNL admission was fully confirmed in a major report (330 pages) released three months ago by a U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The expert panel reached a consensus that the reprocessing technology proposed for New Brunswick by the Moltex corporation “does not provide significant proliferation resistance.”

The need for an independent international review is urgent, as Moltex announced just last week that the company is seeking an additional $250 million in government funding.

The researchers supporting the call for an international review of plutonium reprocessing in relation to the spread of nuclear weapons are:


Dr. Gordon Edwards, President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Adjunct Professor and Principal Investigator of the Rural Action and Voices for the Environment [RAVEN] project, University of New Brunswick

Dr. Janice Harvey, Assistant Professor, Environment & Society Program, St. Thomas University

Dr. Jean-Philippe Sapinski, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Université de Moncton

Dr. M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia

Dr. Frank von Hippel, Senior Research Physicist and Professor of Public and International Affairs Emeritus, Program on Science & Global Security, Princeton University 

February 23, 2023 Posted by | - plutonium, Canada | Leave a comment

France mounts ‘aggressive’ nuclear push with eye on EU industrial plan

“They’re trying to get nuclear everywhere where it doesn’t fit … to have policy lock-in,” said one EU diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity, adding: “Everybody is a little annoyed at the French — it’s very aggressive.”

Paris looks out for its atomic industry as the sector faces a crossroads.

BY VICTOR JACK, 17 Feb 23, https://www.politico.eu/article/france-aggressive-nuclear-energy-push-eu-industrial-plan-renewables/

With its atomic industry at a crossroads, France is mounting a lobbying blitz to put nuclear energy on par with renewables in EU climate legislation — and unlock benefits from the bloc’s upcoming plans to boost green industries.

Paris argues that if the ultimate goal of the EU’s climate targets is to decarbonize the bloc, that should mean nuclear plants, with their negligible CO2 emissions, have a key role to play alongside renewables.

But that push — and attempt to reposition nuclear as a green technology — is also a strategy to strengthen Paris’ hand down the line in accessing cash from the bloc’s upcoming mammoth industrial strategy, six diplomats told POLITICO.

“They’re trying to get nuclear everywhere where it doesn’t fit … to have policy lock-in,” said one EU diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity, adding: “Everybody is a little annoyed at the French — it’s very aggressive.”

The move is designed to “build leverage for other arguments” down the line, a second EU diplomat said.

Asked whether France expects nuclear to be counted as a “clean technology” in the upcoming industrial plan and therefore benefit from it, a senior French energy ministry official told POLITICO that “the [EU sustainable investment rules] recognize the fact that nuclear … is a technology that contributes to the transition.” 

“So in absolute terms, it seems to us that this question already has an answer.”

Small victory, bigger problem

Paris notched a first victory last week on the EU’s long-awaited rules governing what counts as “renewable hydrogen.”

Unlike most other countries, hydrogen producers in France will be able to count the electricity taken from the grid as renewable as long as they also sign a long-term power contract with an existing renewables provider. The exception was made because 70 percent of France’s electricity comes from low-emissions nuclear.

But this promotion of nuclear-powered hydrogen — also known as “pink” or “low-carbon” hydrogen — is only one part of France’s broader push to inject atomic energy into EU green policy files, in which it has so far been less successful.

In late January, Paris attempted to insert low-carbon hydrogen into a renewables cooperation partnership with Ukraine, but was ultimately overruled.

It also led a push alongside eight other EU countries this month for pink hydrogen to be included in the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive, arguing that it should contribute toward 2030 targets for greening transport and industry.

When it didn’t get its way, France accused Spain and Germany of reneging on promises to recognize the role of low-carbon hydrogen.

“It would not be understandable for Spain and Germany to take different positions in Brussels and not keep their commitments,” French Energy Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher told reporters last week.

Atomic needs

The push comes as experts predict France’s electricity demand will rise sharply as the country electrifies to meet its climate goals, and its ageing nuclear fleet declines. 

Historically an exporter of electricity to its EU neighbors, France last year was forced to import power to meet its consumption needs as half its nuclear fleet was forced into maintenance due to corrosion and other technical problems.

And with the country’s largest utility EDF announcing a nine-month halt to another nuclear reactor earlier this month, that leaves two-fifths of its reactors still out of action.

“A lot of these nuclear reactors are ageing,” said Carlos Torres Diaz, senior vice president and head of power at Rystad Energy, a consultancy, who predicts some will be decommissioned already “in the next decade.”

Add to that French electricity demand is set to rise from 417 to 715 terawatt-hours by 2030, Torres Diaz said, meaning “there will need to be some investments.”

Paris is clearly aware of the challenge. In a sharp U-turn from his previous policy, President Emmanuel Macron announced plans to build six new reactors last February, with an eye on building eight more.

But that won’t come cheap, with new nuclear plants typically costing “billions,” Torres Diaz said. “If they need to renew all this ageing capacity then they will need to get the funding … If it’s not a green source of energy they will struggle to get some financing.”

That’s where the EU’s Green Industrial Plan comes in.

Announced last month, the upcoming plan is Brussels’ attempt to help the bloc go toe-to-toe with the United States’ $369 billion Inflation Reduction Act with a range of tax relaxations and new industrial benchmarks for 2030.

From the proposed European Sovereignty Fund, to more state aid allowances and potentially a competitive auction for a 10-year fixed-rate renewable hydrogen contract, there’s ample opportunity for France to cash in.

With the discussion still in its early days and specific language on policy not yet nailed down, that gives France an opening to stake out its position.

In the planned Net-Zero Industrial Act, for example, which aims to slash red tape on “net-zero” technologies, the “precise product scope [of the technologies] remains to be defined,” according to the European Commission.

Marion Labatut, EDF’s deputy director of EU affairs, agreed “it would be good” if nuclear were included in the upcoming strategy. She added that the utility would be interested in accessing the Commission’s hydrogen auction, for example.

And while France is likely to face resistance from nuclear-skeptic countries including Germany and Luxembourg, recent diplomatic efforts indicate Paris is not likely to give up easily.

In fact, pink hydrogen was on the agenda during the first official meeting between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and French Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne on Thursday.

Overall, this push “is very unsurprising,” a third EU diplomat said. “The French are very skilled at using crises to push their own strategic policies ahead.”

Alexandre Léchenet and Giorgio Leali contributed reporting.

February 23, 2023 Posted by | France, politics international | Leave a comment

Groundwater carries radiation risk for North Korean cities near nuke test site – rights group 

By Hyonhee Shin  https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/groundwater-carries-radiation-risk-north-korean-cities-near-nuke-test-site-2023-02-21/

SEOUL, Feb 21 (Reuters) – Tens of thousands of North Koreans and people in South Korea, Japan and China could be exposed to radioactive materials spread through groundwater from an underground nuclear test site, a Seoul-based human rights group said in a report on Tuesday.

North Korea secretly conducted six tests of nuclear weapons at the Punggye-ri site in the mountainous North Hamgyong Province between 2006 and 2017, according to the U.S. and South Korean governments.

The study by the Transitional Justice Working Group said radioactive materials could have spread across eight cities and counties near the site, where more than 1 million North Koreans live, and where groundwater is used in everyday lives including drinking.

The group, formed in 2014, worked with nuclear and medical experts and defectors and used open source intelligence and publicly available government and U.N. reports for the study, which was backed by the National Endowment for Democracy, a non-profit corporation funded by the U.S. Congress.

“This report is significant in showing that North Korea’s nuclear tests could threaten the right to life and health of not only the North Korean people, but also of those in South Korea and other neighbouring countries,” said Hubert Young-hwan Lee, the group’s chief and a co-author.

Telephone calls by Reuters to North Korea’s diplomatic mission to the United Nations in New York went unanswered.

In 2015, South Korea’s food safety agency detected nine times the standard level of radioactive caesium isotopes in imported hedgehog mushrooms that had been sold as Chinese produce though their actual origin was North Korea.

China and Japan have ramped up radiation monitoring and expressed concerns over potential exposure following the North’s previous nuclear tests but did not openly provide information on contaminated food.

Many outside experts have raised concerns over potential health risks from contaminated water, but North Korea rejected such concerns, saying there were no leaks of harmful materials following past nuclear tests, without providing evidence.

When North Korea invited foreign journalists to witness the destruction of some tunnels at the nuclear test site in 2018, it confiscated their radiation detectors.

Seoul’s Unification Ministry, which handles inter-Korean affairs, stopped testing defectors for radiation exposure since 2018 amid a thaw in cross-border ties.

But, out of 40 defectors from the regions near Punggye-ri who were tested for radiation in 2017 and 2018, at least nine showed abnormalities. The ministry said, however, that it could not establish a direct link with the nuclear site.

More than 880 North Koreans have escaped from those regions since 2006, the report said.

The rights group urged a resumption of testing and an international enquiry into the radiation risks for communities around Punggye-ri.

The Unification Ministry said it will consider restarting testing if any defectors report health problems and request support regarding radiation exposure.

Seoul and Washington have said Pyongyang could be preparing for a seventh nuclear test.

February 23, 2023 Posted by | North Korea, water | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point Nuclear is really a colossal miscalculation of risk management.

Costs Continue To Rise For Hinkley Point Nuclear Megaproject

Or was this another legacy project of the Tories’ whose main desire was to protect Britain from the labor militancy of  British coal miners whose last bitter, year long strike ended in 1985? From what we can tell, the UK government simply wanted a new nuclear power generating station period—more likely for national prestige—and not a discussion of alternatives, or the risks incurred by builders, or the financial consequences imposed on consumers by this decision.

Oil Price. com, By Leonard Hyman & William Tilles – Feb 22, 2023,

  • The cost estimation for Great Britain’s Hinkley point C nuclear power plant has effectively doubled from 2016 to 2023.
  • Hinkley Point is really a colossal miscalculation of risk management.
  • The Hinkley point C project shows that the single asset concentration risk is too high for the utility company in question.

For close to a decade, Great Britain’s Hinkley Point C nuclear power project has served as the go-to punching bag for anti-nuclear activists. Sure enough, the gift that keeps giving has furnished still another reason to be chary of big nuclear projects.

Background for those not in the know. The current Hinkley Point nuclear project was the brainchild of British energy planners in the early 2000s. Their goal was to build another big nuclear plant at an existing site. Several actually. French state-controlled EDF took on the task with big British energy supplier Centrica as a minority owner. But Centrica soon backed out due to the escalating costs. EDF brought in a Chinese state company as a replacement partner. The UK government signed an agreement guaranteeing that the unit would collect a generous price for power generated (an insanely high price according to one critic at the time). In 2016, the project commenced with an estimated cost of £16-17 billion.

Oilprice readers will not be surprised that these costs kept rising. In February 2023, EDF estimated that the final cost would be close to £33 billion ($40 billion), a 100% increase versus the initial estimated cost to completion. The Chinese partner may not agree to further investments beyond those initially agreed to so EDF could be exposed to even higher costs. With the completion date set for 2027, should we expect more increases? 

The news stories cite inflation as a primary reason for the cost increases. But the UK’s construction price index rose 40% between 2016 and 2023, while the estimated cost of the nuclear plant almost doubled. One distinguished economist noted that the plant would have cost far less if the government had financed it, but that is another matter. 

Hinkley Point is really a colossal miscalculation of risk management. Start with this statistic. The Hinkley Point project investment to date equals roughly one-fifth of the enterprise value of EDF. There are 56 other nuclear plants in EDF’s portfolio. One of the lessons learned by most US utilities after the Three Mile Island accident was that big nuclear plants and relatively small electric utilities are not a good match. In technical terms, the single asset concentration risk is too high. One might argue that EDF is big enough to take the chance, but that is clearly not so.  

Then there is the matter of whether the British government worked out its aims and the risks of the various solutions. Why did the UK need this nuclear project? To protect against the insecurity of foreign energy supplies? Wind turbines, solar and domestic natural gas would do that.  Or was it the main goal of policy makers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? In this at least they may prove successful but there are much cheaper alternatives. Consider as an alternative weatherproofing all those damp and cold council houses which were designed to be drafty due to earlier pandemics and worries about gas safety. That would have saved a lot of energy and reduced the need for the project.

Or was this another legacy project of the Tories’ whose main desire was to protect Britain from the labor militancy of  British coal miners whose last bitter, year long strike ended in 1985? From what we can tell, the UK government simply wanted a new nuclear power generating station period—more likely for national prestige—and not a discussion of alternatives, or the risks incurred by builders, or the financial consequences imposed on consumers by this decision.

This brings us to our final point. Hinkley Point C is a classic giant project, a category of construction brilliantly analyzed by British analysts in the 1980s. It is a huge effort that will take years to complete, requires a guess at market demand years from the date of inception, and once complete and in service will have a big impact on the market all at once when completed. In addition, this project involves many different owners and contractors, domestic and international, plus multiple national governments and requires the owner/builder to finance a project whose failure might have disastrous financial consequences for it. In other words, the project entails taking not only many risks but big ones. So why didn’t they consider alternatives first before plunging in?………………  https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Costs-Continue-To-Rise-For-Hinkley-Point-Nuclear-Megaproject.html
—

February 23, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Our Global Surveillance System on NUKE TESTING is inadequate

For the ones whom are not aware, there is a global monitoring and surveillance system that detects radioactive particles and gases on a global scale from 80 stations to detect the “smoking gun” in regards to nuclear testing globally in which Canada and the US are collaborators for surveillance purposes.

Suffice to say, pending global atmospheric transport, there are not enough monitoring stations in Canada or the US.

 This is because of the complexity of the jet stream (northern hemisphere) and the long-range transport of these radioactive particles emitted by nuclear testing because of atmospheric dilution or long-range transport, especially xenon (gas), either because of atmospheric dilution or weather patterns in the northern atmosphere. Climate change will in time make this even more problematic.

 This is because of the complexity of the jet stream (northern hemisphere) and the long-range transport of these radioactive particles emitted by nuclear testing because of atmospheric dilution or long-range transport, especially xenon (gas), either because of atmospheric dilution or weather patterns in the northern atmosphere. Climate change will in time make this even more problematic.

Coriolis forces:

Link: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/coriolis-effect/

Check out the link below for more details on the global surveillance system on radioactive fallouts from nuke testing: Link: https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/monitoring-technologies/radionuclide-monitoring

“How the radionuclide monitoring network works

The 80-station radionuclide monitoring network enables a continuous worldwide observation of aerosol samples of radionuclides. The network is supported by 16 radionuclide laboratories with expertise in environmental monitoring, providing independent additional analysis of IMS samples.”

“Radionuclide technology is complementary to the three waveform technologies used in the CTBT verification regime, and the only one that can confirm whether an explosion detected and located by the others is indicative of a nuclear test.”

“Radionuclide stations measure radioactive particles and noble gases, i.e. radionuclides, in the air. A radionuclide is an isotope with an unstable nucleus that loses its excess energy by emitting radiation in the form of particles or electromagnetic waves in a process called radioactive decay.”

February 23, 2023 Posted by | NORTH AMERICA, radiation | Leave a comment

Health appeal: avert nuclear war and respect international humanitarian law — IPPNW peace and health blog

One year on since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, we call once again for peace. The danger of a nuclear war is escalating every day this war continues. Any and all nuclear threats, explicit or implicit, should cease immediately. The use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and could easily […]

Health appeal: avert nuclear war and respect international humanitarian law — IPPNW peace and health blog

February 23, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

February 22 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “What Europe Showed The World About Renewable Energy” • One year ago, on the cusp of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it seemed unimaginable that renewable energy in Europe could overtake electricity from oil and gas. But not even a year later, it did. By the end of 2022, wind and solar combined overtook […]

February 22 Energy News — geoharvey

February 23, 2023 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

TODAY. Painful realisation that Australia’s Labor defence minister is even more stupid and subservient to USA than the Liberals were!

From the Guardian yesterday :

The sustained controversy has prompted the defence minister, Richard Marles, to declare in a speech to parliament that acquiring nuclear-powered submarines would  “dramatically enhance” Australia’s sovereignty, rather than undermine it.

I am almost lost for words…. Is Richard Marles really that stupid? (a) to believe this nonsense himself and (b) to think that aware Australians would believe it.

Australia’s “sovereignty” has always been dubious. From 1770 we were absolutely a British colony . From 1901 we were still a British colony in reality, though no longer in name. Australian soldiers went to World War 1, unnecessarily, for the British. I would argue that since 1945, Australia morphed into an American colony, in our gratitude for USA fighting off the Japanese in WW2.

My measure for true colony-status is – going to war on behalf of the boss nation. Australia has enthusiastically (and unnecessarily) sent our young men and women to fight for America’s wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan – wars that had nothing whatever to do with Australia.

America has got smarter about running wars now. They’ve got Ukraine to try to conquer Russia on USA’s behalf (rather than work out a diplomatic solution to the 8 year war in the Donbass). America just sells Ukraine the weapons . This is a two-way win – both financially and politically – no American lives at risk.

Ukraine is probably a dress rehearsal for the big one – against China. This time Australia will be the patsy.

As a prelude, America sells us $171 billion of nuclear submarines. Which Australia can ill afford. These are so that we can fight China on USA’s behalf, (along with nuclear bombers based in Australia). Once again – the colony practically bankrupts itself, (as in Ukraine), and takes all the risks (as in Ukraine)

Why did I imagine that a Labor government would really be any better that the Liberals, when it comes to international relations?

Instead of macho-muscling up against China, – Australia should be recognising its position as a part of Southern Asia, teaching Asian languages and cultures, and fostering good relations and trade with our neighbours, and honestly expressing our differences. That includes China, which shows no intention to attack Australia militarily. Why should they, when they’re better at spreading influence with trade and culture? The Chinese have a different system, in some ways deplorable, – but evolving, and they are not demons.

February 23, 2023 Posted by | Christina's notes | 2 Comments